A02369
Articles : Sci-TechThe End of Net Neutrality?
If you haven’t been following this big story about the future of Net Neutrality, I’ll try to lay it out as simply as I can.
Good Guys: Proponents of Net Neutrality.
Bad Guys: The telecom giants who want to extract fees for service.
The Good Guys want to protect the internet and keep it in the hands of folks like you and I. The Bad Guys want to control it and put it in the hands of big telecommunication corporations. Now, it’s not that black and white of an issue, but for the most part the Bad Guys are looking to gain more, while the Good Guys (Google, Amazon.com – still not great) want to protect what they already have.
Right now the Senate is heating up, with a vote likely to come down in the near future. A lot of our elected representives have not come out one way or another on this important issue. This really is the future of the internet we are talking about here. In the days ahead, if we abandon Net Neutrality and some big honcho in New York City decides websites like this one aren’t worth putting on his company’s search engine, or provider package, it could be lost.
These corporations very well could decide what is and what isn’t available to be viewed on the internet. They could price the little guys out. It could be like Wal-Mart of the web. They could very well control most content, and pick what you can and cannot see, read or listen to. It’d be the end of internet democracy in the United States, where all sites can be accessed.
There is quite an underhanded campaign going on now by a group called “Hands off the Internet”, who claim to want to protect the internet from regulators and Big Government. They are even running deceptive ads on blogs and other websites in hopes of pulling internet readers in to their camp. Some of the big names behind these cunning ads include AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon.
Co-chair of this group is the ex-spokesman for President Bill Clinton and other Democrats, Mike McCurry. And what a trickster McCurry is. He even writes a column over at the “liberal” Huffington Post from time to time. He claims Net Neutrality will kill the internet.
Fact is, it’s Net Neutrality that has gotten us this far. Yet he writes, “The Internet is not a free public good. It is a bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is creaky. You all worship at Vince Cerf who has a clear financial interest in the outcome of this debate but you immediately castigate all of us who disagree and impune our motives. I get paid a reasonable but small sum to argue what I believe.”
So how much does this guy get paid? Well, not sure how much the big telecom giants are dolling out (hundreds of thousands, I’m sure), but he charges $10,000 and up per speaking gig. That’s not a “small sum” in my book. And to think that the web isn’t a “pubic good” is exactly the kind of thinking that has taken away our airwaves and put them in the hands of big corporations.
You know how when you turn on your TV how there isn’t thousands of channels at your disposal? That’s because you have to pay for those channels, they aren’t free – even though you supposedly own the airwaves. The same thing could happen to the internet if guys like McCurry have their way. You’d have to pay for access to the web, and each carrier would have much different ideas about what the “web” is. There would be different packages and different sites available per package. Sort of like cable TV vs. DirectTV. It would radically change the way the web works. And in the process it would likely leave out alternative blogs and news sites – as they would have to pony up big bucks to have access to consumers. And even if they did, they might not make the cut. Somebody else could decide if it’s a site worth your time or interest.
The internet is a work in progress, spearheaded by innovative and creative people, not big corporations. As the ol’ adage goes: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
GNN contributor Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush and edits www.BrickBurner.org.
Get involved with the Free Press’s Net Freedom campaign here.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
Bleh. Could there be a less informative (and more simplistic) article on the subject?
“pubic good”
That sounds like a cause I’m willing to fight for.
“A lot of our elected representives have not come out one way or another on this important issue.“
Poopycock. The House has alread passed ( that means voted) a measure on the issue and is awaiting the Senate version. The have spoken.
In the Senate, two commitees are near completion of their versions. Most of which have gone on record as to where they stand. I and a few others on GNN have been documenting this along the way.
THE one person who I haven’t heard near enough from is The Messiah, Al Gore. Where does he stand on the issue?
Six months ago he said, “Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy. It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates.“
Notice he doesn’t utter the phrase ‘Net Neutrality?’
Where is he when the battle is waging and the cannons are being fired. Oh, movie stardom. Sorry.
I have further thoughts on this topic, most of which are laid out on another thread and are not worth re-hashing here.
I don’t see this piece as being very well done. Not in the least.
Supposing that America does eventually lose Net Neutrality entirely and everything becomes controlled by telecoms companies such as AT&T, will it directly affect the content that I can access here in the UK? If not, may it have the effect of ‘inspiring’ the Labour Government to go down a similar route? I’m interested in this whole issue, but I can find precious little information about how it might affect the rest of the world, if at all.
I’ve been wondering that too, actually. How will American servers treat international traffic if there’s no net neutrality?
Good question.
I have always seen this as a smokescreen to tariff the consumer, in the end.
Once Amazon and the other Megaliths have to dole out their toll, they will fight it under Anti-Trust. In case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t putting up a headline grabbing fuss over all this. Not saying they haven’t gone on record, but mostly it’s standard not a fairl playing field garbawge.
At that point the Telecoms will saddle the consumer with bandwidth usage fees, rather than a monthly unlimited. If this is structured properly, it’s only fair.
This takes the burden off of investors, the telecoms, etc to build out the fiber infrastructure that is underway.
Verizon is building fiber to the home. AT&T is fiber to the curb, copper the rest of the way. I’m sure they envision returning to the curb and extending fiber the rest of the way, or paying Verizon for access.
Companies like Tyco, who manufacture support enclosures and the like are in the process of bringing jobs BACK to the States for that very purpose. From Belgium, I believe.
I’m still convinced Net Neutrality will remain, what will be gone is the flat rate fees paid by the consumer.
The U.S. will be the test ground, and the rest of the world’s IP’s will follow, I would imagine.
Senate Panel Narrowly Rejects Net Neutrality
excerpt:“With a tie vote, a U.S. Senate committee today rejected a proposal that would have required broadband providers to give their competitors the same speeds and quality of service as they give to themselves or their partners.
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s 11-to-11 vote means the Net neutrality amendment will not be added to a wide-ranging broadband bill as it goes to the Senate floor. The amendment, offered by Senators Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, would have prevented broadband providers such as AT&T and Comcast from charging extra based on the type of content transmitted by Internet-based companies.”
I got around to contacting an American webhosting service I use, asking them what they knew about the net-neutrality thing as it relates to small websites run by people in different countries. They said they didn’t know what was going to happen (obviously, since nothing much has changed yet), but they did say:
“As for international, it should remain fine and speedy, but inside the US things will get interesting for sure.”
So that’s some reassurance, anyways. It’s a bit strange to think that international traffic would get prioritized over domestic users, but I guess it would be unfair/impractical for American companies to start charging international users for the right to use American networks.
I wonder how the net neutrality issue will play out in Canada – I have so little to do with this industry I’m basically completely ignorant. A few blogs says the CRTC hasn’t touched on it, but other bloggers say net neutrality rules are already enshrined under our current rules – that blogger points to a section of the Telecommunications Act which says:
“27. (1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.
[Unjust discrimination]
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.”
Don’t people generally pay those through an ISP though? For example, my cable provider has a bandwidth limit. They don’t tell customers how high it is, but if I were to download/upload several gigs a day for a few days they’d slow my connection down to a crawl to prevent me from being a bandwidth hog. It was only recently that they dropped hard limits – I used to only get 10 gigs a month in transfers. But maybe that’s just unique to the ISP I use, since I haven’t used any other cable providers.
Ted Stevens is a shit.
‘“These people who argue they ought to be able to drop all this stuff on the Internet maybe ought to build their own network,” Stevens said.’
I can barely understand what he’s saying under all that tech-speak.
Ted Stevens is the same scumbag with the bridge to nowehere. Fuck that guy.
Monthly unlimited bandwidth to the home is the only Internet service I’m aware of. I’ve never seen it metered to the home. I can imagine if someone was using major bandwidth an ISP would conclude you were doing more than simply surfing the net, and sharing some files, etc.
As for the latest develpments. They stink for the most part.
al a carte went down, as well.
The analysis I’ve read, says that the House and Senate versions are so far apart, and that the Senate is bogged down with other issues, that even though this was voted out of commitee, it may not see the floor this session.
Long and short. The Telcos will not get permission to do jack shit. The status quo will remain until the next session.
This could be a blessing in disguise if the Dems make headway in the Senate, as they are expected to do, in November.
Much too early to sound the death knell for Net Neutrality. Much to early.
Stevens is the asshole who is ramrodding this quacked up shit. What a fucking senile, transparent fuck he is.
Can someone save us all a hell of alot of trouble and just post a link to some email comment form to the FCC — that’s the action called for on this issue.
I know Anthony can’t do this since this isn’t an “activist” site and I’m too neo-retarded to do it.
thanks,
The FCC is a little divided on the issue.
Some commisioners say they will persue Anti-Trust action if the Telcos / ISPs set up a tiered internet.
Congress makes the law, the FCC only enforces it.
If this bill goes through, which it most likely won’t, the FCC will be …. Ahem … neutered
Right BUT they got that new Republican to break the tie. Anyone — just a little linky-poo.
A link to what kind of info, Drew?
E-mails of the FCC are not generally disemintated on the internet, in my experience.
Directives, policies, and opinion papers, OK.
No no no no! Takes drag on huge joint.
political action email TO the FCC to complain — that’s what these groups are asking for. So I’m the only one who is interested in such a link? I guess I have to track it down? I though others might be on this.
Here you GNNers go — how to contact the FCC and other great actions
Haha, your link is as broke as your premise.
The FCC is not the tree to bark up. It’s Congressional Reps up for Re-Election in November.
Put them on the hot seat, publicly , on the issue.
Then you’ve done something.
Drew, I know activists. I see one in the mirror every fucking day….
Drew …
You’re No Activist
Gee thanks I edited it and with a few strokes you too could have reached the website (if you weren’t a CIA stooge or brainwashed or something)
This website has LOTS of actions to ALL sorts of sell-outs and best of all once you type in your required information then it’s templated for everything.
have fun.